Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 10, 2011 11:00pm-11:30pm PST

11:00 pm
like the city attorney, huerrera is? >> your ass in a couple of different questions. -- you are asking a couple of different questions. he has different ethical obligations. given that the board of supervisors is his client. he withdrew as council on this issue. with respect to the supervisor who announced his candidacy, this is not for the mayor at this time. he has no conflict. he would have a conflict and could no longer participate.
11:01 pm
>> the main difference is the city attorney and he has a client relationship. he has a relationship with the other city officials. providing advice to others on this issue. arguably a conflict. >> somehow, that advice could effect the outcome of the decision? or for what reason? >> why does he have a conflict of interest? >> if he is not a candidate for mayor -- only for the regular elections. >> a myriad of questions arrives as we deliberate on the procedure. the advice could influence the
11:02 pm
decisions that the board makes now and in the future. perhaps there is no conflict. this is not enough that the attorney will not participate in a decision. >> not to put words in your mouth, instead of the city attorney. i could ask him directly. the concern about conflict or appearance of conflict has to do in how the engagement in the process could effect his candidacty for mayor -- candidacy for the mayor. >> this is his advice. it is in his service as the city attorney. >> in regard -- regard to not being the city celection -- selection, to the extent he is
11:03 pm
not and supervisor dufty is not, and both are candidates, the city attorney was concerned about an appearance. on the memo, there is concer about the a -- concern about the appearance. this is in regard to the other election-related matters. he is concerned about some conflict with the advice he is giving us. somehow influencing the election. this has to do with the race for mayor in november. the same conflict and appearance of conflict does not apply to dufty because his vote and engagement does not have the same impact. it seems it has a greater
11:04 pm
impact, to me. there is a real vote. it does not seem like a lesser impact. >> there are different ethical standards for lawyers -- lawyers. those rules will trump personal views he may have. it is adherence to those rules. we cannot ask him. he is not here. >> but the memo from august 25, it does not cite a different standard or code of ethics. it -- seems to cite a conflict of interest. would this apply to the board of
11:05 pm
supervisors? >> i would assume that this is a conflict of interest rule. it does not apply to the board of supervisors, -- or members thereof. >> i think what is cited in the memo is the conflict of interest involving monetary gain. this would apply to -- member of -- members of the board of supervisors. i can quote it for you if you want. >> i think i am exhausted on that. i do want to talk about two otherone, i am planning on
11:06 pm
introducing an imperative bite him. perhaps it cannot be voted upon until tuesday. i am not sure, procedurally, whether we can vote on it today or not. it would be to direct our county council to ask the attorney general for an opinion on the legal, -- legal quandary that supervisor campos asked about on tuesday, as well as the john upton article from the basis since this morning. in an article this morning, the office of the reason why they had not opined on the situation right now is the same tune washington has some to as many times, they have not been asked.
11:07 pm
the question that would be appropriate for us to formally ask that question. i did want to reference another article from yesterday entitled "behind the scenes, power of politics." in my opinion, this is probably the best piece of journalism that i have seen out of the san francisco press corps in a number of years. the depth and thoroughness of this article, to me, was surprising. it surpassed what i am used to in terms of what we typically see from the "san francisco pronto" or "the examiner," which has the shortened news columns.
11:08 pm
there are revelations in about mr ed lee in terms of discussions about concerns that he has as to whether or not he can return to the position of city administrator. he cannot, not without significant changes. there is there a law that was passed and strengthen that one point, which is a good government lawn, where my, starting tomorrow, cannot work for the city full time for a year. that makes sense because it would have been bad -- it would have been a bad public policy. i am trying to figure out what i'm doing in the coming year, potentially trading votes, or potentially engaging in this
11:09 pm
conversation in a way as to how i could get myself a job. the fact that that was not a possibility, that is called good government. we take that possibility away. it is not even a consideration for me in terms of who i support for how i engage in this process. what i would say to mr. lee, if we ever talk is that if you end up being appointed successor mayor, that comes along with five years, nine years'. those are the options. for the 12 months following that term, he cannot have full time employment in the city and county of san francisco because it is a good government law.
11:10 pm
it could be good to have ed lee back as city administrator year after he was mayor. maybe it would be good to have me working in human services next year. what is better than that is not having deal-making and vote- trading, and bad governments, because someone wanted a city job. we have that law for a good reason. i think we should keep it. if anything, we should possibly expand it. a year may not be long enough. two years might be better. the federal government has a similar law. i think it is five years' prohibition on work. i think perhaps we can take a look at this. it should make us want to expand our good government clause and not revert and go back. we have this deal and someone has this job and they are
11:11 pm
making $250,000 per year. they have kids in college. not that those are not real concerns. if that is a concern, perhaps mr. lee should keep the city administrator job and not take the office of mayor. finally, and i watch with interest, and i appreciate the person who is here who was quoted in the article -- i appreciate her thoroughness helping with translation of the sheriff's deputy's talk with members in the crowd. it seems as if, according to her, the former mayor was very involved in setting up this potential appointment of ed lee as successive mayor. -- successor mayor. that was so well done. i would go ahead and nominate
11:12 pm
that person for the position of interim mayor and vote for her. why not? why not cut out the middleman? if rose pack is the one putting this together, if she is the one with the talent and the ability to make this happen, the most important decision i have seen on the board of supervisors continues, then rightfully -- i assume she is a qualified electorate in san francisco, i believe, even a constituent of mine. why not go ahead and make her the successor mayor, if she has that level of ability to put together in three short days the most important decision this board has made in 10 years? president chiu: the next person
11:13 pm
on the roster is supervisor campos. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. a point of clarification. we are providing general comment about the various people who are currently -- whose nomination is currently under consideration. thank you very much. i would say that if there is something that i have found very gratifying about the process, it is the level of interest that it has sparked in so many people. my view has always been that government is better served and best served when more people are involved. i am sure i am not the only member of this board who has heard from a number of people who have indicated they have been watching this process very closely, and certainly what has been happening in the last few days. i am very proud to see that
11:14 pm
level of interest and involvement on the part of san franciscans. we have gone through quite an interesting ride in the last few weeks. i am glad to say this is almost coming to an end. when i nominated mike hennessey three days ago, as i indicated at the time, i did so in the spirit of trying to bring this board together, and trying to find someone that we could all get behind, and specifically mike hennessey, because the mayor himself had indicated that he was comfortable with mike hennessey serving in that role, and because the other supervisors on this board indicated that they would support mike hennessey. i don't really know what happened between the time that
11:15 pm
those representations were made and the actual vote took place. one thing that i will say is that, in my humble opinion, mike hennessey, who is a resident of my district, with all due respect to everyone involved, did not deserve or does not deserve the kind of treatment that he has received. i think that he is one of the most distinguished public servants that we have had in san francisco. i know that he, like mr. li, was not looking for this job or asking for this appointment. in fact, he only considered it after hearing from so many people, including people allied with mayor newsom and mayor newsom himself. i think it is disappointing that someone of his stature and
11:16 pm
of his level of accomplishment was put through that. i have always said that i am open and have been open to edwin lee to serve in his role. i'm someone who, at some point, approached him about considering this option. i am very confident of his qualifications. i know that he has a long record of public service. the problem i have with where we are is not the person that we are talking about, but the process that has been followed, and how we have gotten here. part of the problem with this process is that it took a 6-5 vote, and thank you, supervisor maxwell, to provide some of us on this board the opportunity to actually ask mr lee some of the
11:17 pm
basic questions you want to ask someone being considered for this job. that has been very helpful. mr. lee has called me. we have spoken twice. i want to thank him for his willingness to do that. i know that he may have spoken to other members of the board. i still think that this process leaves a lot to be desired. i do think that all of us on this board of supervisors have some responsibility in that. i certainly take that -- take my share of that responsibility. at the end of the day, we still have to make a decision. notwithstanding the fact that i am very disappointed with the way in which this process has gone down, and very disappointed
11:18 pm
with the shifting of positions with respect to some of these votes, at the end of the day, the question remains, is ed lee someone who can do this job? i believe that he is. i believe that, contrary to some of the statements that have been made, ed lee is no lightweight. ed lee is someone who has, for a long time, distinguished himself in different capacities. the ed lee that i will be supporting today is someone who has demonstrated to me through his work that he is committed to making san francisco government work for all people. that said, there are still questions that remain in terms of what ed lee administration's will look like. there are still questions that need to be answered. i am hopeful, based on the conversations i have had with him, that he is prepared to have
11:19 pm
an inclusive government that recognizes that especially in the capacity of an interim mayor, it is important to govern in a way that includes every member of this board, that includes every community in san francisco, that is transparent. he has made that commitment. i know that he will abide by that commitment. i look forward to working with him to make sure that happens. this appointment cannot be seen as one side of the political aisle winning over another. if that is how it is seen, and more portly, if that is how it materializes, then we all will have failed. i am putting my faith that ed lee understands the importance of reaching across the political aisle and including all of us, whatever your labeled, moderate, progressive, you name it, that you will be included in this government. i think it is important,
11:20 pm
especially in the first few days of this administration, that he take steps to make sure that happens, to make sure that the mayor's office is run in such a way that access and transparency are two words that clearly define everything that is done, and that the individuals that will be working in that administration are people who understand that. i have faith that he gets that and will make that happen. whatever i can do to help, i look forward to doing. i see many people in the audience who are here to support ed lee. i know the significance this has for the chinese-american community. as a person of color, as an immigrant myself, i know that there is something very special when the community that has felt it has been excluded feels that one of their own can take the position as important as being
11:21 pm
mayor of san francisco. i think that those of us who are casting this vote need to take that into consideration as well. that is an important part of why i will be voting this way. mr. lee need to understand it is not just the hopes of the chinese-american community that are being placed on his shoulders. it is the hope of every san francisco. it is the hope of the people i represent in district 9, the hope of the latino community, the hope of the african-american community, the hope of so many immigrants who will look to him as someone who will make sure their voices are heard, and that the doors of room 200 will be open to all san franciscans. with that, i will be supporting mr. lee. one of the questions i will pose to him as making sure that as he has been and probably will be
11:22 pm
selected by the sport, that the laws that the sport has passed, that those laws are fully implemented. one of the things that goes to the core of this question of including everyone is making sure that all san franciscans, all residents of this city, are given equal treatment. my hope is that the ed lee that is elected, if that is what happens, will provide due process rights for all san francisco in. my understanding from reading the paper is that at least one member of this board has given -- has been given confirmation that he believes we should remain a sanctuary city. my hope that the ed lee that i know when that we all have heard about and will hear more about will make sure we continue with that and that the rights of undocumented youth in the city continue to be protected. i look forward to working with
11:23 pm
mr. lee and to the progressive community, i know that we all have questions. we have disappointments. the question of what happens to the future of room 200, as important as this is, will ultimately be decided in november of this year. the best thing we can do as a movement and a community is to come together and make sure that we advance the agenda that is based on sustenance, based on issues, not on individuals or personalities, and that we, as part of the progressive movement, move forward and try to get results that -- results to issues. president chiu: supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you, president. colleagues, thank you for your patience to come back another day. perhaps many of you never
11:24 pm
expected to be here on friday after the last tuesday board meeting. i really needed some time to consider ed lee's nomination more thoroughly. the last time i have a conversation with him, he said he did not want to be the interim mayor. since then, i have the opportunity to speak twice with ed lee. probably the best time i have reception in my home was talking on my cell phone wednesday morning. we spoke for about half an hour. it was a very direct conversation. i had a number of concerns about the administration that he would run in san francisco. my chief concern has really been about the effort that my office and the offices of other supervisors here have been involved in the legislation to produce a local hiring ordinance to the legislation that came in the making across
11:25 pm
many communities in san francisco. i wanted to have an assurance from mr. lee that the city and county would make sure that it could be implemented as strongly as possible, to make sure we were given the resources to the office of economic and work- force development, to implement local hiring, to make sure communities were involved. we need to make sure we're doing our best to prepare people for the work force. he gave me that assurance. that is something that was very important to me. think about the city and how our city is changing demographically, and changing in good ways and bad ways. we have a discussion about the african-american out-migration. look at the local hiring ordinance. i think it is something to stem the tide of migration of
11:26 pm
african-americans. we look at the issue of the growing asian community that needs support. working-class immigrant communities still need support and are in great flux. these communities need a lot of support. that is something that i think -- why we need to be looking at, not just a short-term decision around of the mayor to bring stability in the transition, but also long-term about how we will unite communities that often are divided. i feel that we are so far along in this process about deliberating on the mayor, we could go on forever. we could open up nominations and each person that comes up would have good points and bad points. we could hash goes out over and over again. we would actually be doing more to defy the city, to prevent us having a better transition into the new mayor and to the new
11:27 pm
mayor in november as well. iowa -- it is best that we make a decision and live with the decision that we make. i feel it is so important that we recognize that the chinese community in san francisco has never had this opportunity before. it is very meaningful. i have to speak to that, how meaningful it is. we look at san francisco and how san francisco and california is leading the way towards, i would believe, putting this country and a better path, recognizing people who are struggling. we have elected democrats again for congress and at the local levels. mayor gavin newsom and another person are going to sacramento. changes are happening in oakland. we elected a chinese mayor in oakland. these are incredible things happening in san francisco. we need to look at the incredible changes that are
11:28 pm
happening. to go back on where we are at right now would be incredibly divisive. that would be setting the work that we do in this building and the work that i have been doing as a community organizer, as a social worker, as someone who has been working in grass-roots organizations for years, would set us back. i looked toward how we can build the kind of power and inclusion of people, the involvement of people in our city government to make city government more accountable. i believe that a vote against ed lee at this point would be something that would be setting us way back. i want to move forward. i had questions about the process, how we got this far, how we got this way. i raised those questions here about the mayor holding off on being sworn in as the lieutenant governor position. i have made comments about the process, how we came to the appointment of ed lee. ed lee has been out of town.
11:29 pm
it is difficult to get a hold of him. despite my difficulties with the process, moving forward from here, i believe, is the best thing we can do for the short- term in terms of developing a transition, and for the long- term in terms of developing the kind of community inclusion that we have to have, that we need to work together to unite our communities across san francisco. to divide our communities is something we have seen too much of. we have seen too much of the communities with in these chambers. i want to think we can put our best foot forward to unite around ed lee as our interim mayor. i look forward to joining you in that vote. thank you. president chiu: supervisor mar? supervisor mar: i want to thank our outside clark from santa clara county. i really appreciate your